Three related sets of experiments are proposed to investigate choice behavior. The author's recent work suggests that the strength of a stimulus, as measured in a choice situation, is equal to the amount of reduction in expected time to reward signified by the onset of that stimulus relative to the reduction in expected time to reward signified by the onset of the other stimulus. The first set of proposed experiments is an attempt to evaluate the generality of this choice theory with procedures different from those in which it was developed. At the same time, the results of these experiments will permit an assessment of a quantified version of Egger and Miller's information hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement--quantified in terms of reduction in expected time to reward--and, in so doing, may provide us with a more useful theory of conditioned reinforcement. The second set of experiments examines the matching relations between rates of responding on simple concurrent schedules for reinforcement and either the rates or amounts of reward delivered for responding on the two schedules. On the basis of our recent work (with expected time to reward) we speculate that these matching relations lack generality; we propose to test this prediction. The final set of proposed experiments should enable us to ascertain whether or not choice behavior exhibits the mathematical property of transitivity. These experiments have some more specific objectives as well, for example, to obtain answers to the following: (1) are reward and punishment symmetrical processes that are equivalent to their effects upon choice (though, of course, opposite in sign)? (2) are rate and duration of reinforcement equivalent in their effects upon choice?